Slashdot Mirror
House OKs Life Sentences For Hackers
ByteHog writes "The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Monday to create a new punishment of life imprisonment for malicious computer hackers. The article on MSNBC also mentions that police can conduct internet or telephone eavesdropping without first obtaining a court order. Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'" Other articles can be found here and the text of the bill is available.
Well, if hacking actually resulted in deaths, a life sentence would be applicable. Has it?
Build your own computer? You're a terrorist.
Run an "unsecured" operating system? You're a terrorist.
Share files? Terrorist.
Complain about corporate abuse? Terrorist.
Demand your Fair Use rights? Terrorist.
Fail to consume your fair share? Terrorist.
In 100 years, when they are picking over the ashes of our civilization wondering what went wrong, this will be the turning point day they decide on...the day when you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a computer.
So if I train my dog so it kills someone, I'll get a cushy 4 years in jail, but if I train my computer so it causes only fiduciary damages, I can get life in prison? That seems screwy to me.
The future isn't what it used to be.
I hope none of the 1 million Governement Snoops I read about via Drudge don't turn you y4nk33 haxxors in. (What happened to fighting the good fight with 'Hacker' vs 'Cracker', anyway?) Actually, its probably reasonable, if someone deliberately set out to kill people by screwing with Air Traffic Control or somethings. But there's a cold wind blowing from the hill.
If you read the text of the bill, life sentences are only allowed if the offender knowingly causes or attempts to cause death or serious bodily injury.
In other words, they are authorizing life sentences for attempted murder through hacking, which I think is very reasonable. Attempted murder can already get you a life sentence, I don't see why it should be any different if you attempt it through a computer than if you attempt it through any other means.
Spanish Inquisition!
Now all we need is for the FBI to issue red vestiments to their Computer Crimes task-force and when the pop in the door they can scream:
No one expects the...
[signature]
Yessir, those nasty aweful communist/drug dealers/terrorists/threat de jour are so bad we have to covertly suspend the US constitution once again to protect Freedom and Justice. My neighbor looks like one of those geeky hacker types - fetch me my alligator clips and Rat Shack amplifier...
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
" Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. " From the wording of this, spyware should fall under this yes? And probably any snooping programs like the one you use to watch family members....no?
Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'"
This is true (Disney)
Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'"
If this is the case I see no reason why Best Buy should not be allowed to stock bombs.
Imagine the possibilities. This could bring smiles back to the faces of teens everywhere.
The sad part is, i doubt many people will fight this. Sure, the media will acknowledge its existance, but will say that it makes life sentences available for hackers who damage our infrastructure, and further hurt digital terrorists in our country (clip of something in there). Nobody will hear about the invasion of privacy stuff. Oh wait--what privacy. Sorry, guess i forgot that its not for your average American Citizen.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&o
and thought it was april fools. it's just too unreal...
question is- what do we do about it?
would that qualify as cruel and unusual punishment? is there anything in the constitution saying the crime must fit the bill?
Where does this leave honeypot systems and the like?
Will this include items suchs as peeka-booty?
This makes me want to send a 2 line email to my congressmen including these lines:
"are you fucking retarded?
How can you say that things like this are equivelant to this?
But of course I'm sure it will soon be illegal to critisize our own gov't- because that will PROVE that we're terrorists.
(Please god don't make be become a fucking political activist.)
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
Build your own computer? You're a terrorist.
Run an "unsecured" operating system? You're a terrorist.
Share files? Terrorist.
Complain about corporate abuse? Terrorist.
Demand your Fair Use rights? Terrorist.
Fail to consume your fair share? Terrorist.
Shooting people to pursue political gain? Not sure. Depends.
Holding a population hostage via threats of violence? Depends who does it.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
The funny thing is that the biggest threat to the internet right now is WorldCom itself....since they own UUnet and are going seriously bankrupt. Of course UUnet will stay alive somehow, either by WorldCom, sold to someone else, or through a government bailout. The major backbones and networks are really in a pretty powerful position, since they control major portions of the internet.
They'll just bomb your country.
What I don't understand about this is why there needs to be specific bills related to computer hacking.
As I understand it, the bill relates to the case of "if the offender knowingly causes or attempts to cause death or serious bodily injury."
Doesn't the USA have laws against this already? I mean, if I murder someone with a frozen banana, it's still murder, you don't need a law saying "you are not allowed to murder someone with a frozen banana". Surely knowingly causing or attempting to cause death or serious bodily injury is currently against the law anyway, however you go about doing it? Why is this law necessary?
That murder is usually a State, not Federal, matter. In the case of a hacker, who may be operating across State lines, it is proper for the Federal Government to get involved.
Best Slashdot Co
I like the "from the but-still-okay-to-rip-off-the-stock-market dept". That's fitting, given the posturing of congress to get tough on corporate crime.They paid lip service to it and raised some of the penalties but they've done nothing to increase the vigor with which these cases are prosecuted. To date, few of these cases have been prosecuted. When they do prosecute a company for cooking it's books, they'll be defended by the best lawyers money can buy. When a hacker is tried, he'll have the standard, substandard legal defense. The result is few corporate criminals will ever go to jail but lots of hackers will be railroaded.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'
Then buy a cat. And stop calling crackers hackers.
Well, this is just the beginning. Computers are a realatively new technology. Compared to the history of automobiles. In the beginning of widespread use, 1920's, there were certainly no need to have a license if you wanted to roam the public roads. (internet)
And If you wanted to roll your own car, no problemo. As cars became more or less everybodys-god-given-right, accidents started to happen everywhere and people did die. It will happen! Computers will be as regulated as cars. And it will happen soon. Sooner than we would like.
lazee_coward
Pray you never find out the hard way.
No Zen is good zen
Get what repealed?
IT'S A BILL
This still needs to go to the Senate and the Pres. Lobby them.
While I was initially shocked by this decision, I am now of the opinion that it might actually be a good thing. It was the notion that a "mouse can be as dangerous as a bullet" that got me thinking.
The more dangerous computer criminals (no, I won't call them "hackers") are in the eyes of the public, the more respect non-criminal computer experts, like most of us here on Slashdot, will get.
When we choose to use our skills for good rather than evil, we will be seen as the benevolent protectors of society, much as the police and military (trained in the arts of combat, just like criminals) are seen today.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Today, the US Government passed a landmark bill that allows for life inprisonment for attempted murder through a computer. "Anyone can just sit down at their computer, push a button, and POOF! Instant erasure of the worst kind." says Attourney General John Ashcroft, "Not to mention most hackers can destroy the world economy from their parents basement."
Senetor Hollings also commented, "I believe this new legislation will act as a deterrant for would-be hackers trying to kill people with pirated music." he continues, "The reason why there aren't more people with broadband Internet connections is precisely because of things like this. How can the movie industry adopt a medium that can kill people with the push of a button? No, no one wants broadband if they know there's hackers out there that can kill them with a few mouse clicks."
A representative from the Bush Administration says that the new law will cut down on the rampant child pornography rings on the Internet by allowing Federal investigators to intercept any email containing questionable material and forward it directly to the President.
President Bush commented, "Al Queda is encrypting messages in porn sites all over the Internet. I plan to PERSONALLY put an end to this terrorist network."
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
I'm not sure I see how the level of sophistication should affect the sentencing. Does this happen in other crimes? ("He shot her a bit amateurishly, so we'll only give him 5 years"). And why does it make a difference whether its a government computer or not?
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
Historically humans have always attacked and destroyed what they don't understand. That or they become religious and used religion to explain everything.
So hacking (cracking) is no different. Most people don't understand it. They see from movies that people can sink ships and fire nukes by playing with BASIC on their Apple IIe.
And yes I read that a life sentence is only for murder, but I'm sure a crime done through hacking will get a longer punishment than through "normal" means. There are examples of this happeneing already.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
SEC. 106. STRENGTHENING PENALTIES.
Section 1030(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
`(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.'.
If you try to kill somebody you might get a life term, no different to recklessly or knowingly causing death any other way. So you try to crash air traffic control computers you get thrown in jail for life - sorry if I'm not too sympathetic.
That's what it looks like to me.
Murder is murder is murder, whether you use a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, an umbrella or a computer[1].
It seems that the major western governments are rushing towards right wing police states, using terrorism as the excuse to do so. Do your "representatives" really represent you in this?
[1] Though not a spoon. I think you should be let off for ingenuity if you manage to kill someone with a spoon.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
- 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'
Although the mistake of considering the mouse the hacker's weapon (it should be the keyboard), he knows what he's talking about.For they if someone dies, there's always somebody else giving birth somewhere. But if they lose money, they can't win it again. So, for them money is much more important then lives.
Now we are sure that this is the way they think!
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
here is the focal point of this discussion:
`(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.'. (my bold)
You may think of 'hacking' as an act in and of itself. This bill deals with various crimes that a 'hacker' might perform, using hacking as a tool or a means.
For additional perspective, refer to these acts mentioned in the bill:
(F) whether the offense involved a computer used by the government in furtherance of national defense, national security, or the administration of justice;
(G) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of significantly interfering with or disrupting a critical infrastructure; and
(H) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of creating a threat to public health or safety, or injury to any person;...
Examples of acts that are contemplated here: disabling a national defense warning system; flooding a city by opening the spillways on a dam; disabling the air traffic control system in a busy metropolitan area.
And for those who will quickly argue that these systems should not be connected to the Internet, note that the bill does not limit these acts of 'hacking' to access from the Internet. Hacking can also include access from inside a company or facility, dialup access to a piece of critical equipment, or even some acts of 'social engineering.'
These are not new criminalizations of innocent acts. They are simply expansions of existing principles to include new technology and means of hurting people and property.
you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a computer.
That's like complaining that you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a screw driver. If you use that screw driver to tighten screws, you're fine. If you stick it in someone's eye and wiggle it around, you may be facing LIFE in PRISON for the MURDER that you committed with your SCREW DRIVER.
Evil is the money of root.
Oh so now they might hackers can be put away for life? What about is phreakers? Why are we always left out of the equation here? I demand on behalf of all the Phreakers everywhere that the EFF & ACLU file federal discrimation lawsuits against the government for not granting phreakers the equal rights of be thrown in a deep dark prison for the rest of thier lives for making free phone calls! This must be done! this is an INJUSTICE... so basically a hacker can take down amazon.com or whoever.. and go away for life and a phreaker could take down Worldcomm(oh wait they did that to themselves) err AT&T's network and go away for only a few years!! TRAVESTY PEOPLE TRAVESTY!!!
We Phreakers demand Equal RIGHTS!
Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'
So can a House member for Texas if he falls on you from a great height.
If it takes each recipient an average of one second[1] to identify and delete a spam, then sending (60*60*24*365*70) = Two Thousand Million spams will consume a lifetime[2] of time[3] on the part of the recipients.
Could we convince the lawmakers that a life for a lifetime would be an appropriate punishment?
Andrew
[1]Some people read them, some scan them, some deal with them automagically, 1 second average is a guestimate.
[2]Three score years and ten. Seems like a reasonable number.
[3]Of course this ignores the waste of resource and collateral damage, such as an important email junked because it looked like spam or an importand email lost amongst the spam.
Nicely put. But I'll add:
Peace: A situation where there hasn't been any overt terrorist activities, and the government decides it cannot afford to sustain the high-level of alert because of budget deficits and the coming elections.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Read the penalties section of the bill. Its life imprisonment for people who attempt to cause death through hacking. That is, if I hack into a control tower and try to make planes crash, I might be sentenced to life in prison.
Currently, that would be a weak case of attempted murder. We have crimes in the country that say "If you commit a crime, there's a penalty. If you commit a crime with a weapon, thats a more serious penalty." Well, when using computers as a weapon, its a weapon.
If I kill someone by hitting them over a kead with a palm piolt, is it any different from hacking there car and causing there breaks to fail, or just cutting the break cable..
No it's no diffrent. However the palm piolt does not come with a promis that this can't be done. Where as mots hacked networks are aledged to be unbreakable
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
All of our laws are written like this. That's why we have juries, defense lawyers, and many layers of appellate courts.
Evil is the money of root.
In most states of the US (and most developed nations) you are not allowed to operate an automobile without maintaining basic safety (and emissions) equipment. I expect sometime in the near future similar requirements may be made of systems connected to the internet.
Today the conversations may look like: .. I pay for this service and I'm not responsible / can't afford to fix it ...
ISP: Your system is being used for attack by an intruder, if you don't take it offline and get it fixed we will enforce our AUP and take you offline.
customer1: Ooops, sorry ok we'll spend the $$ / time to fix it
customer2:YOU CAN'T DO THAT
ISP: CLICK
Today, while it's feasible to keep systems patched / audited for a reasonable level of safety, many (most?) orgainizations don't have the skillset / funds allocated to keep their systems secure against even the 'kiddies, let alone a determined attacker. That's gonna have to change IMO either thru systems that are harder to break into in the first place or better practices.
Some of the provisions of this bill are also simple clarifications of existing statutes. For instance see the provision: Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. -- apparently while it's illegal to advertise wiretapping equipment in print, this will extend the restriction to online ads also.
This explains why I've been seeing the adds and spame for keyboard keystroke recorders (shame on you thinkgeek!) and packet sniffers to protect (spy on) your kids or spouse.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Admittance that the internet is not, and never will be secure?
And a book or political tract can be even deadlier -- look at the track record of the Communist Manifesto.
Will Congressman Smith sponsor a law against books, next? This whole thing reeks of technophobia.
That kind of surveillance would, however, be limited to obtaining a suspect's telephone number, IP address, URLs or e-mail header information--not the contents of online communications or telephone calls.
Okay, I'm thoroughly confused. So you think someone is 'hacking' into a system and may cause 'bodily harm'. You're allowed to find essentially the location of said individual, but you can't snoop the data in the packets, only the packet headers? Does this make sense to anyone else? How can you actually tell what someone is doing without looking at the data they're sending across.
OTOH, is this a loophole? "Sorry, you couldn't possibly have any idea what I was doing on that system unless you were snooping packet data, which is clearly illegal."
<sigh> Bartender, send those folks at the end of the bar a clue, on me...
--trb
I had the same "knee jerk" reaction but...
/jarek
"(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.'."
This just acknowledges that computers are integral and vital parts of our lifes and can be used in malicious ways just as knifes or guns. Welcome to the global village and the on-line world people.
I am sure that many of you read about the Honeypot that was hacked into last week and eventually the hacker himself was located.
Does this mean that teenage "hackers" (Very loosely used) will now be tried as adults and put in prison for life?
Many of those people barely know what they are doing, as was shown with the hack attempt on that OpenBSD honeypot.
What I really want to know, is why the heck can a mouse be as dangerous as a bomb? Don't people back up data? That is a terrible generalization. There shouldn't be any reason for a mouse to be as dangerous as a bomb. The systems that could allow such damage to occur should NEVER be accessible by unauthorized individuals. They should be on their own hardened network, seperate from the rest of the net.
Sure, it can be helpful to have an application that connects to the nuclear reactor's control and monitoring station so that a director can view and alter the flow of nuclear material from his internet connected desk computer. Why the heck take the chance that some SOB angry 15 year old or terrorist would be able to access that system?
Personally, I think that this threat is being blown WAY out of proportion and is really designed to protect corporate networks that aren't locked down enough. I say to bad. If they want to have internet connected desktops across their enterprise, then they better be ready for the assault that WILL happen. If they don't like that idea, then they should cut themselves off of the internet, only allowing E-mail to come and go from their network. Sure, a few workstations would need net access, but not EVERY single workstation in the company.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
(G) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of significantly interfering with or disrupting a critical infrastructure; and
(H) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of creating a threat to public health or safety, or injury to any person;...
So if Joe sends an email to Jane and for some reason that email trigger some weird bugs that somehow cause some shitty system to go down and that system going down cause G or H then you can get life imprisonment for sending an email?
Ok that exemple is a bit extreme, but still, given how everthing is/can be interconnected through computers who knows how much unintended effects can result from some interraction with buggy software.
The 20 year penalty is for "an attempt to commit bodily harm". The Life sentence is for "an attempt to cause a death".
Nevertheless, the bill does not *merely* do what the news reports claim, and in that, it is alarming.
The interesting part is the definition of "protected system", which is taken from "18 U.S.C. 1030" (search for it in your favorite search engine), and the modifications made to it by the bill.
It does not involve only government computers, as the text of the bill itself implies. It also involves "any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954" -- most of which is public information these days, and available from many web sites containing information on basic high energy physics (apparently, congress-critters believe that if they can't figure something out without a crib sheet, neither can your average university-trained physicist or engineer, which is why they think they could successfully legislate against light switches).
Further, it includes records from "information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer", per "15 U.S.C. 1681".
This can be loosely interpreted to mean "any system which stores credit card numbers".
--
The real question that we should be asking is whether this is a Writ Of Mandamus... it seems so, since there do not appear to be practical restraints on use of information gathered under the terms of this bill (i.e. "We thought he was a terrorist; as it turns out, our justification was bogus, but we still get to use the evidence gathered to inform against him for that Metallica MP3 he downloaded").
From my reading, it's unconstitutional, under the 4th Ammendment.
Of course, since it passed by such an incredible amount in the House, there no reason to believe that it will not quickly become law: it clearly has wide bipartisan support, and will clearly get the White House's approval (see below).
What that effectively means is that it will remain law, until it is challenged by a perpetrator on the basis of constitutionality. Basically, the law will have to be violated to be tested, at considerable risk to the violators, given the tendency recently for the Federal Government to use the Bill Of Rights in place of toilet paper.
I guess the only thing we don't know is whether this is an overreaction to last September, or if its an overreaction to the lack of consumer confidence in the market, where they think if they can point to themselves "*doing* something about some real market risk", we will forget all about "the man behind the curtain", and not insist on substantive tort reform.
If you read the House Report version of the bill, you'd think the latter (e.g. reaction to "Enron")... almost all of the listed congressmen are from -- *surprise!* -- Texas.
The Constitutional basis for incorporation itself is to serve the public and shareholders interests (read the relevent USC on incorporation, if you don't believe me); this seems to have been reduced to nothing more than "fiduciary responsibility to protect shareholder value, and screw public interst". More fundamental reform is required: this is not about people not acting like a--holes for fear of the penalty, it's about people not acting like a--holes because they *aren't* a--holes.
-- Terry
Murder is normally a state crime, because you commit it in a state. When killing someone crosses state lines, you need the Feds. Additionally, when it is possible via Modem/Internet, you have a case where the FCC and Courts have ruled (at least in some circumstances, I believe) that it is always Interstate and Federal jurisdiction.
Keep in mind that Federal does not mean more seriously.
In the scenario where you got a really big kill (say wiped out lower Manhattan), you don't want to leave it to New York to deal with, when they might be dealing with massive problems. Letting the Feds run the manhunt, investigation, and prosecution for this makes sense.
Assassinating the President is a Federal crime, so its not unprecedented for the Feds to outlaw murder.
Alex
If the Senate also approves CSEA, the new law would also:
...Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. The prohibition now covers only a "newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication."
So, no more X10 popups, then? :-)
My question is, why do we need a new law in the first place? Last time I checked all those things you mentioned are already illegal. My worry is someone will get life for doing something that doesn't "threaten" or whatever a human life. Well, it doesn't really matter anyways. It's not like he'll get a trail under our military tribunal system anyways.
It simply boggles the mind how these fucktards running our country can make a law for every single thing in existence in the world, covering the same crime by 50 or 60 different laws...
Grrr... obviously they don't have anything better to do than waste our tax dollars and pork interns(not just Billy boy, mind you, the whole lot of our public servants mostly), or possibly kill them. It is becoming excruciatingly painfully obvious that our public officials are not like the average American, they are much, much greedier and of much lower character.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
That's like complaining that you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a screw driver. If you use that screw driver to tighten screws, you're fine. If you stick it in someone's eye and wiggle it around, you may be facing LIFE in PRISON for the MURDER that you committed with your SCREW DRIVER.
My god, he's right! We must make sure these screwdriver murderers face proper justice! There oughta be a law. . !
Seriously, if murder is already illegal, why does murder with a computer have have to have special legislation?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I think it is funny that hackers can get life in prison by doing maybe a few million in damages to a company or government. But then the CEOs of WorldCom and Enron can fuck their employees out of their retirement and all savings they might have had by cheating the system. Not to mention the amount of money investors are out of because the stock market has tanked. Have you heard what sentence they are going to get? Nothing I am sure. Pure bullshit!
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Good thing we didn't have this law in place when Robert Morris had his accident.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
Example 1: You throw a rock off an overpass with the intention of cracking someone's windshield as a prank. The rock causes a fatal accident. Even though you didn't intend to kill anybody, you will probably be at least ELIGIBLE for life in prison, depending on the laws of your state.
Example 2: You set a soda can on the railing of an overpass. You accidently knock the soda can off, and it causes a fatal accident. If the circumstances can be proven, it's unlikely that you will face life in prison.
The judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense lawyer all play into the conviction/acquital and length of sentence, based on the circumstances.
I was once on a jury that convicted a rapist. We could have given him any prison term from zero to life. We deliberated and selected a term that was appropriate for the circumstances.
Evil is the money of root.
The bill just passed in the House of Representatives, but still has to be passed in the Senate. This means that while it is well on it's way, it it is not yet a law. The bill can still be rejected or even just reviewed and changed when it gets to the Senate. (this happens frequently. Poloticians seem to like the taste of things better once they have pissed in it)
Editorials aside, if you object to the bill you have a small window of time here where you can still do something about it. Write your SENATORS. If you really want it to have an effect, sport for a stamp and send your letter via snail-mail. (Rumor has it that most parts of government ignore email these days) But i that is too hard, write them an email at least, it may not help, but it can't hurt.
Finally, not all of the bill is absolutly horrible. But a few parts need serious scrutiny. You will come off soundling less like the lunatic fringe if you suggest revisions backed by logical concerns.
The parts that seem to be most "dangerous" are the following (from the MSNBC article):
If the Senate also approves CSEA, the new law would also:
* Require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to revise sentencing guidelines for computer crimes. The commission would consider whether the offense involved a government computer, the "level of sophistication" shown and whether the person acted maliciously.
* Formalize the existence of the National Infrastructure Protection Center. The center, which investigates and responds to both physical and virtual threats and attacks on America's critical infrastructure, was created in 1998 by the Department of Justice, but has not been authorized by an act of Congress. The original version of CSEA set aside $57.5 million for the NIPC; the final version increases the NIPC's funding to $125 million for the 2003 fiscal year.
* Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. The prohibition now covers only a "newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication."
Just my $.02.
from the real world. Bush's opinion polls are still as high as they were during height of the "War on Terror." What's more, besides the fact that he's merely extremely popular, I, at least, agree with his policies, by and large. We're not merely trying to secure justice, what we're really fighting is the future massive terrorist attacks. Although it will certainly help, these attacks won't go away just because Osama and every last Al Queda are dead. The simple truth of the matter is that we were NEVER previously configured to fight that kind of terrorism, from some of our laws, to our intelligence services, to simply the way that we treat those that harbor and aid terrorists. This means that, yes, sometimes people do need to be held without a public trial. Sometimes we need to draw clear lines and define those countries that accept terrorist camps on their land as "evil", so as to affect change, despite the fact that they may be nominally neutral. And so on... We can't just go back our old way of doing things entirely. It's foolish to expect us to fight something rather new while resting, albeit ignorantly, in the comfort of our old ways of doing things, at least with any real analysis. Yes, you may know the old way of doing things, but have you really thought through the consequences of it in light of the circumstances? I don't think you have.
Sounds like someone needs to watch some more Schoolhouse Rock :)
Oh, I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill...
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
(5) if the offender knowingly causes or attempts to cause death or serious bodily injury in a violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title, imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.
they arent talking about a DoS attack & they arent talking about defacing someones website. they are talking about air traffic contol systems, stoplight controls on busy intersections, railway switching programs, nuclear powerplant software and other things that have the potential to cause graet harm...
they may have been watching to many movies, but I see where they are coming from....
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
What are these people smoking? First of all, real computer hacking is not "magical". It isn't like in the movies. Generally speaking, nearly all hacks take advantage of either a known bug in a networking program, or laziness. Computer hacking is not about smashing down a steel vault door...its about walking in the back door that someone left unlocked and cracked open.
Generally, the easiest way to do it is to get someone's password by either conning someone into giving it to you; sending someone a trojan email with a keystroke logger embedded in it (best and easiest way); or installing a hardware logger (if you have physical access).
OBVIOUSLY, if a computer system cannot be accessed it can't be hacked! What important financial or military computer has ACTUALLY been hacked?
Most of the court cases are stupid. They involve someone downloading software that others have written to take advantage of known software bugs (a script kiddie) and using it to mess around. Sure, a major site might go offline for a few hours....but the world of computing has so many "natural" technical glitches that's hardly a problem.
Viruses only affect major companies because the employees there are stupid and lazy. They continue to use Outlook, they don't filter executables out of incoming mail, and they don't update their software.
Oh sure, some scipt kiddies have broken into DoD "classified email" servers, but how does that warrant a life in prison?
Unlike the movies, most real machinery and IMPORTANT computer systems are generally not upgradable without pulling chips or at least gaining access with tools to the serial port.
First, survelliance without a court order is unconstitutional. This portion of the bill will surely be stricken down by the Supreme Court.
Second, the rest of the law is redundant and unnecessary. Crimes committed via the internet should receive the same punishment as those in the real-world, where the situation is analagous. For example, breaking and entering can be treated the same. Simply hacking into a persons computer is breaking and entering, even if it causes no damage; similarly, breaking/entering into a person's home, even if you do no damage or steal nothing (and don't damage the locks), is a crime.
When a hacker purposefully hacks into, say the USAF HQ, and steals top-secret documents on airplane design, then divulges them to China that's a crime just as it is in real life (treason). Similarly, it should be punishable just as it is in real life (by life in prison or death).
Another example, if a mob boss orders an underling to kill someone via an on-line e-mail, that's murder and conspiracy to commit murder. It should be punished just as it is in real life: by life in prison or death.
The fact that a crime took place over the media of the internet does not greaten or lessen its severity or lack-thereof. It simply creates a jurisdictional issue. The issue can be solved like such: if a crime is committed on the internet and its affect occurs in that state, then its the state's jurisdiction; if it occurs in one state and affects another (i.e., the mob boss in NY orders his hitman to kill someone in CA), then it should be under federal jurisdiction.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Problem 1, you can't generally prove what a person was or was not thinking when they did something. It's their word against that of... well, who exactly is an authority on the contents of someone else's mind? Mistress Cleo or whatever her name is, with the 900 number?
Problem 2, there really is a difference between "first vs. second degree murder" and "hate crime or not." The first case is about a person's particular motivations and thought processes for the crime in question. But a hate crime amounts to something slightly different.
Let's say I hate black people and think they deserve to die (I don't, but let's say). Let's say there's readily available proof of this (hate literature in my handwriting, photos of me shaking hands with David Duke, etc.). Now suppose I decide to knock over a liquor store. It goes wrong, and the hapless clerk gets a faceful of lead. But oops, he was black! I'm now a hate criminal, as opposed to just a bigot who knocks over liquor stores.
The difference here is that for something like first-degree murder, it can in many cases be reasonably demonstrated that there was calculation, that the motivation for the crime had certain characteristics we see as worse than a simple fit of rage. But for a hate crime, all you can really prove is a coincidence (literally, for two things to coincide). You've got a crime, and you've got a pattern of hate against people like the victim. But only in extremely specialized circumstances will it be absolutely demonstrable that the crime itself was a direct result of that hate. I would have to have a great deal more faith in the justice system than I do if I wanted to believe that only in such cases would hate crime laws be applied. In the real world, having such laws means punishing people for what they happen to think, not because of anything pertinent to their actual crime. That's thought crime, and it's a really bad idea to set such a precedent.
It's also totally unnecessary. There is such a thing as flexibility in sentencing (don't get me started on mandatory sentences, though). If it's clear that a killer is a really despicable person, a murderous bigot or whatever, I think that flexibility should be sufficient to account for it and give a harsher sentence.
My deviantArt site
The DMCA was once just a bill....
Isn't it interesting how comments posted on Slashdot are so very different depending upon which countries are being discussed?
Many of the comments to this story are along the line of "dumb politicians don't know what they are doing" or "why is this new law necessary?"
Very few people people are talking about the fact that it will allow the government to listen in on email communications without a court order.
If however, this story had been about China, I guarantee the comments would all be along the lines of "communist China is evil", "this shows that Chinese don't have the same freedom that we Americans have", "the Chinese don't understand technology", etc., etc.
If it was Europe the comments would be along the lines of "this shows that those European socialist governments can do whatever they want", "Americas have the most freedom of anyone in the world", etc. etc.
But hey - they NEVER blow up the doors of the wrong people, and they've never shot innocent people at all. Nope
But that's an entirely different discussion.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'
Just great, now we'll have a five-day waiting period on mice, and export controls.
And now that he's equated mice with weapons, wouldn't the 2nd Amendment kick in to guarantee your right to keep and bear mice?
Last question in relation to that statement: If a cracker only uses the keyboard, is he safe from prosecution?
Fear of the unknown??? Come on, that's a phrase you use for giant city destroying lizards, space aliens and under sea monsters, not hacking. Hacking, distilled to it most basic element is breaking and entering. I don't give a shit if curiosity is your only crime; If you're going to break into somebodies electronic house and rifle through, steal and/or destroy somebody's electronic shit, you oughta get smacked down for it. And like breaking and entering, if you should happen to kill somebody through accident or intent (ie; somebody mentioned crashing an air traffic control network) during the act, you should face the real-world consequences everybody else faces. Do you actually believe a burgler or an arsenist is somehow justified for breaking into your home or destroying your property by saying tripe like "You just fear the unknown" or "curiocity is my only crime"? Tme to return to the real world, ace.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It is becomming more and more correct every day, and it's scary as hell!
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's like complaining that you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a screw driver. If you use that screw driver to tighten screws, you're fine. If you stick it in someone's eye and wiggle it around, you may be facing LIFE in PRISON for the MURDER that you committed with your SCREW DRIVER.
Good point. We need a new screwdriver law.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
-Turkey
You first state, that the US should have these laws, because using computers is different.
But the you say, that by using a computer as a weapon, you should be treated like you committed the crime with a weapon.
So, why does the US need those laws again?
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Maybe so, but read some of L0pht's papers about the widely insecure remote access to power grids, city works (traffic controls, etc.), and other such things which are probably very hackable and not connected to the internet.
I must be out of the loop: the L0pht never released any white papers on infrastructure insecurity. They merely, at the behest of the NIPC, testified before Congress something to the effect of "if we wanted to, we could hack the nation inside of an hour" or some ridiculous hyperbole like that. They're good hackers and all, but the sane mind looks to the reasons why they said what they did without any proof as they'd be wont to provide in any other situation: the almighty buck. The FBI got its "cybercrimes" division and the L0pht merged with @Stake, who now performs federal contract work for... guess who?
Judges take intent into consideration. If I steal a car and intentionally run someone down, it will be treated differently than if I steal a car and accidentally hit someone; these laws handcuff the human element, turning judges from arbiters of law into life-sentence machines.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Though this bill is bad (in that its privacy-rights violations are unconstitutional) and rendant (in that everything it bans is already dealt with adequately by another law), it does not give the death penalty to a teenager who simply hacks into someone's computer. The death penalty is explicity reserved for cases where an online hacker knowingly causes the death of another person, or the rape, or the torture thereof (if either of those are possible to cause online). This is not uneven law. Its essentially the same law as exists in the real world.
Personally, I think that we should also give out life in prison to people like Gary Wennig (Gloal Crossings), Kenneth Lay (Enron), and Martha Stewart. These people ruined lives just as surely as if they'd killed individuals. You don't think their crimes are of similar magnitude as those of rape/murder/torture? Well, what are the effects of rape/murder/torture? In all cases, the victims life is over, ruined, or crippled for years. And the effects of Wennig, Lay, and Stewart stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from investors? The same. Thus, I think they should be given life in prison.
But if we are to do such, we should do so universally. We do not give life in prison to someone who kills with a machete and a slap on the wrist to someone who kills with Cyanide. Similarly for the internet. The tool with which a crime is carried out should not effect the punishment we deem appropriate.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
So they needed a new law for this? If I broke into a powerplant or something like that, caused damage that resulted in deaths, I'd be ok? I doubt it. Doing it physically or via computers shouldn't matter. Gee, next you'll tell me that CEOs need special laws in order to go to jail if they commit fraud.
No, the same wonderful ACLU that helps ensure that we can go to the library and actually be able to browse Slashdot, the Register, various political party sites, sites giving information on birth control and aides and various other legitimate sites that would otherwise be blocked by dysfunctional filtering programs.
Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, Section 1030
This section here is what is modified by the section of "Strengthening Penalties. It helps to read this first to see what is actually being changed and modified. You can access the rest of Title 18 there as well.
What?
Rapists often only get 6 or 7 years in jail. I guess that is because politicians can easily commit rape, but they are too stupid to hack.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
The neo-Luddites and the troglodites will call totally unrelated acts (such as the legitimate creation of non-commercial software,) as examples of hacking.
"Paranoid? Faced with the kid's 'New Math' when you never understood the 'old math? Don't like the neighbor, don't trust him and saw a funny looking box blinking in his basement?"
"Well call the toll-free HackerHotLine. The HHH. Two letters away from the old KKK. Seen a "bugaboo" on your street? We're on the look out for those too! Our operators are standing by!"
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure but it costs in "paying attention" so we criminalize something instead of doing anything but the cheapest, fastest knee-jerk reaction and leave it all to "the experts."
Yeah. This is America! We gots freedom of speech here. Now shut the fuck up!
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"House OKs Life Sentences For Hackers"
Is slashdot using that terminology too now? I guess it's now OK.
It's not about going to jail for life. It's about the fact that they are allowed to invade my privacy. If I make a joke to my friend about how I'm going to break his leg and they can wire tap me? c'mon! All of this stuff can be grabbed without a court order now: telephone number, IP address, URLs or e-mail header information. This is BS if we don't have the right to free speach what do we have the right to? It means to me that I now have to watch every word I say in an e-mail or fear that I will be tapped by the government. If we're not protectig our rights what's the point to protecting anything? Can anyone say 1984? Orwell was a little off on the date
The Only Person Willing to be Me is ME!
Well okay I can. But fortunately my representative Dennis Kucinich was one of three that voted against it. What can I say. I suppose I have to write him now to thank him for voting well.
Good thing one lives in Europe... at least until he starts bombing those countries who disagree with him (if you are not with me you are against me) which would be ok of course since the US love the idea of a war crimes tribunal.. as long as it only applies to the rest of the world
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
That's like complaining that you could get LIFE in PRISON for using a screw driver. If you use that screw driver to tighten screws, you're fine. If you stick it in someone's eye and wiggle it around, you may be facing LIFE in PRISON for the MURDER that you committed with your SCREW DRIVER.
The only problem I have with this, is that there isn't any specific legislation covering screwdriver related crimes. It's sad that the government must create new laws to cover mis-understood tools used in the same crimes that were committed years ago.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
But far from perfect. Personally, I'm glad to see law moving toward stiffer real world penalties for hacking crimes. Hacking, distilled to it most basic element is breaking and entering. I don't give a shit if curiosity is your only crime; If you're going to break into somebody's electronic house and rifle through, steal and/or destroy somebody's electronic shit, you oughta get smacked down for it. And like breaking and entering, if you should happen to kill somebody through accident or intent (ie; somebody mentioned crashing an air traffic control network) during the act, you should face the real-world consequences everybody else faces. Do somebody actually believe a burgler or an arsenist is somehow justified for breaking into your home or destroying your property by saying tripe like or "curiosity is my only crime"? It's a load of BS and I'm happy to see real world penalties for it.
Like a few other people, this bill needs serious refinement before gtting passed into any sort. I'm all for anit-terrorism and such, but I'm starting to not like the trend in lacking checks and balances in the legistlation lately...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
If a cracker can kill using the web then surely the site that allows that weakness should be considered at fault. If you blame the cracker then only American crackers are stopped and the life threatening sites feel safe. Therefore any anti-American person in another country can kill Americans with impunity.
It is lax security that is the real crime...
Most of this anti-cracker hype is just stupid. 99% of cracks are just grafitti, no worse than paint on the wall. It is hyped up as something serious but I have only heard of a few cases where it is anything more than that.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
While this bill is very worrying, given the increased power it gives to the DOJ (and that maniac Ashcroft...), it's not as bad as its made out to be. Basically, the extreme penalties are for those who knowingly commit acts that result in death or serious bodily injury. That only makes sense. Killing somebody by hacking into an important computer is just as bad as killing him any other way. Also, it increases the penalties for illegally intercepting electronic communications, which is a good thing. Maybe that clause can be used against the FBI and DOJ when they get a little too snoopy.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
This is so obviously an attempt to coerce l33t haxors to work for the govt after they are caught. I am sure that most of them would take a govt job and a nice payday to do the government's dirty work rather than be someone's bitch on CB4.
There is no way that the govt would let talent like that rot when they could be used to fight our own "cyber battles".
With commands like 'kill', 'killall', 'bash', 'dig', 'cut' and 'wipe' we have clearly frightened our legislators. And with commands like 'head', 'tail', 'latex' and 'gawk' they think we are perverts too.
"Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. The prohibition now covers only a "newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication."
;) ) popping under my browser will now be illegal? We might get SOME good out of this thing....
Does this mean those damn X-10 camera ads (which everyone knows people only buy stick in the girls locker room - surrpetitious surveilance.
It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions. I pray that you will bring sanity and compasion back to the senate.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
The knee jerk reaction is right. When they throw "knowingly or recklessly" into the same phrase, its a tough one to beat.
Say you hack a website, that website feeds a stock ticker on another site, and because you've changed the page that stock ticker now shows a zero value for that company's stock. Some investor sees it, and thinking his investments are now down the toilet, jumps out the window to his death.
Now, your hack wasn't really malicious, you didn't think it would cause anyone's death. That's where the "recklessly" comes in; you didn't think of every possible outcome of your actions, thus they were reckless. That's what the prosecution is going to argue. Once the prosecution paints you as reckless, then the jury is swung to their side.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
Somehow this seemed appropriate:
The Conscience of a Hacker
by Mentor
Written on January 8, 1986
Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers. "Teenager Arrested in Computer Crime Scandal", "Hacker Arrested after Bank Tampering"...
Damn kids. They're all alike.
But did you, in your three-piece psychology and 1950's technobrain, ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker? Did you ever wonder what made him tick, what forces shaped him,what may have molded him?
I am a hacker, enter my world...
Mine is a world that begins with school. I'm smarter than most of the other kids, this crap they teach us bores me...
Damn underachiever. They're all alike.
I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers explain for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it. "No, Ms. Smith, I didn't show my work. I did it in my head."
Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike.
I made a discovery today. I found a computer.
Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up.
Not because it doesn't like me...
Or feels threatened by me...
Or thinks I'm a smart ass...
Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...
Damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike.
And then it happened. A door opened to a world rushing through my phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is found.
"This is it... this is where I belong." I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all.
Damn kid. Tying up the phone line again. They're all alike.
You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.
This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals.
We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals.
We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.
Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.
I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all...
After all, we're all alike.
Copyright 1986 by Loyd Blankenship (mentor@blankenship.com). All rights reserved.
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
That's easy... Representatives are more interested in getting re-elected than actually doing the country any good. Computer oriented laws are today what gun control laws were a decade or so ago: quick, easy opportunities for representatives to make it look like they're doing something really good when in fact it's all a bunch of crap.
When politicians start getting unpopular you'll see lots of "buzzword" bills being pushed through Congress. Right now Capitol Hill is the focal point of major flamage with the lameness of our defenses against terrorism and the way the White House appears to be slapping CEOs on the wrist and setting them free after they've effectively collapsed our economy. I'm sure more "buzzword" bills are on their way...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That seems low today, but the law was enacted during prohibition to stop Al Capone, Bonnie and Clyde, etc. from using heavy military weapons against cops. $200 was a major tax in 1930s dollars.
Also anyone with a FFL (Federal Firearm License - i.e. a licensed gun dealer) can own and traffic in Class III weapons as long as the paperwork is done right.
Perhaps now we will have laws that those guilty of corporate or government frauds can be sentenced to life in prison too.
Actually, not quite. How a bill becomes law in the House and Senate is not that simple. Read these and have fun.
Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!
The flipside is that every time an already-illegal act is singled out like this, it somehow becomes "worse" than the same act committed by other means or for other reasons, and therefore likely to garner a more-extreme penalty. Which itself introduces a slew of legal loopholes -- and negates the concept of "equal justice under the law".
It should be *equally* illegal to murder someone because you're pissed at them, or because you hate little green men from Alpha Centauri and it's your mission to cleanse them from the universe, or because your l33t hacking skills let you change some luser's medical records so they receive a lethal dose of drugs. One method or motive should not be considered "worse" than any other, nor penalized differently -- unless of course the victim winds up *deader* because it's a "hate crime" or a "cyberterrorism attack".
Lessee.. if slaying in anger leads to the victim being 100% dead, slaying for hate must result in him being 200% dead; a cyberterrorist's victim must be what, 500% dead?? That might be relevant if it affects your chances of being resurrected by the New You Shop, but not in today's real world.
It seems to me that what's really being done when "hate crimes" and "cyberterrorism" are singled out for special treatment, is not that the crime is being punished, but rather that society's degree of "personal outrage" is being compensated. But personal outrage should not be allowed to affect justice; when it does, justice becomes a lynch mob.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
First - define "malicious". I have to assume only a capital offense applies. I seriously don't see chip-mods on a Playstation or X-box as the target.
Second - Even if the law is on the books, life sentences ain't gonna happen. Johny Walker struck a plea and got 20 years, and his crimes are easier to convict on than a computer crime.
Our prison system isn't going to handle it. "What'cya in for?" "DeCSS"
Third - There are two other branches that vote on this before it becomes a law. The Senate will water this down.
No, this law would go after someone who takes down a 911 system during a terror attack, or something that has a real-world, tangable impact leading to lives lost.
Also, I don't beleive there needs to be any sort of extra laws passed for the "special case" of when a gun is used.
The NRA actually disagrees with you here; it is their opinion that a crime committed with a gun should carry a stiff additional penalty.
I do, however, believe that you should need a license use a gun (in the same way that you need a license to drive a car).
I pretty much agree with this sentiment, as long as (1) the barrier to obtaining such a license isn't set too high and (2) such a license also functions as a concealed carry permit and has nationwide reciprocity (just like a driver's license).
I also beleive that guns should be registered for the purposes of tracking ownership (in the same way you have to register a car).
This creates a problem. The old saw that registration leads to confiscation is an old saw for a reason: it's happened too many times before in the real world. And registration does zip, zero, nothing, to prevent firearms from being stolen and winding up in the hands of a gangbanger or convicted felon; all it does is create fertile grounds for another lawsuit.
I also beleive that some guns, such as fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, should not be in the hands of the general public ... at least, not without special permits (much like you need a special class of license to drive a semi - you can't drive one with the same type of license you get to drive your car).
You'll be glad to know that this restriction is in place and is vigorously enforced. One needs a Class III permit to legally own an automatic weapon or a destructive device; these permits are a real bitch to get your hands on, as they require an extensive background check, approval from local law enforcement, and $200 for the tax stamp. This allows you to own a $5000+ fully automatic weapon -- as much good as the damn thing will do you. Unless it's an M-60 or something more substantial, it's a waste of time; and, arguably, it's a waste of ammo anyway. If the BATF even thinks you own an automatic weapon or a similar Class III device without the proper stamp, they go in with guns blazing, often with disasterous results (Waco, Ruby Ridge).
I respectfully submit that your analogy to a car is fundamentally flawed. It is a privalege to drive an automobile. It is a right to keep and bear arms, even if the government has a legitimate interest in regulating that right. This is something I wish more liberal Democrats (esp. Jan Schakowski, because I like her) would grasp.
Finding God in a Dog
We live in what century? Why do we still have witch scares? Every time a new technology comes along that the general populus dosen't understand congress treats it like a form of magic, and passes laws to burn the witches.
Existing laws already deal with every form of crime against one's neighbor: murder,rape, assult, theft, child abuse, kidnapping, abuse/misuse of someone's property, behaving in a reckless manner, and civil suits. Also, good laws focus on the effect and intent of one's actions and not cause. Murder is when you kill someone. Death by poison, hanging, shooting, or hacking (Killer Robots? Mutant Gerbils?) is irrelivant.
It is time for a constitututional ammendment against witch burning. That is the only way congress will stop trying to battle the black arts, and start focusing on running the country.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
As the owner of the gun, are you at all responsible? After all, you knew that a gun could be used to harm someone. You also knew that leaving a loaded weapon unattended in public view could lead to it being stolen, yet you left it on the porch for the world to see and be tempted by anyway.
Having somebody die as a result of your actions is a "forseeable consequence" of your action.
Now lets go back to traffic lights...
Knowing that drivers go on green and stop on red, somebody who engineers a traffic light system that can be easily re-programmed by "the wrong crowd" to leave all lights green should be able to reasonably forsee this sort of security breach leading to deaths.
Why is leaving your life/death technology unsecured any different than leaving your Smith & Wesson
Or, to go "class warfare" on your ass...
Why is the white collar engineer NOT responsible for deaths he should be able to reasonably forsee? We've put ghetto youths to death/life imprisonment for starting a robbery where the clerk shoots a customer while shoorting at him [the thief], so why aren't the wealthy engineers responsible for the "forseeable consequences" of their actions?
Who did what now?
You left out that convicted executives also get to walk away with multi-million dollar severance packages for their troubles.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
If you're a computer criminal, wether a little kid playing at being like Dade Murphy, or a true criminal who wants to get a few thousand, you go to jail for the rest of your life.
If you're a big CEO of a company, and you do things like give yourself low-interest (or no-interest) loans out of company coffers (which you repay or not, depending on if you resign or the company goes out of business), or you do wonderful accounting methods which mark things like your garbage as income, you get (wait for it): 5 years in jail. I recall reading about a bill which would toughen it to 10 whole years in jail.
Now, stop me if I'm wrong, but quite a few 3 and 4 billion dollar accounting errors seem a little more serious (especially considering how businesses are all connected and eating each other all the time) than some kid unleashing another Nimda variant. Why not have tough sentences for fraud and corruption? Why not start with crimes that are occuring right now, crimes which (if unchecked) could ruin any good financial news for at least a decade? Do we want a repeat of the 1930s?
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
"Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. The prohibition now covers only a "newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication.""
I am very tired of those ads popping up all the time - although I don't recall seeing one recently - I used to get them all the time.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
That is a different matter, for this reason - chances are that nobody would leave a life-and-death system WIDE OPEN. I have to assume here that it has some level of security. To use your analogy, that gun owner would have it locked in a cabinet in his house, but someone broke in, picked the lock, and stole the gun. Now, is the gun owner AS RESPONSIBLE as the person who stole it and used it to kill someone?
Why is leaving your life/death technology unsecured any different than leaving your Smith & Wesson .45 unsecured?
Unsecured is not the same as something being secured, but compromised. And with physical as well as computer systems, there are resonable levels of security that should be expected.
Why is the white collar engineer NOT responsible for deaths he should be able to reasonably forsee? We've put ghetto youths to death/life imprisonment for starting a robbery where the clerk shoots a customer while shoorting at him [the thief], so why aren't the wealthy engineers responsible for the "forseeable consequences" of their actions?
Wow, that is quite a stretch, but I think we are talking about two different things here. For one, there is no single responsible person for many white collar crimes. With software, who is responsible - the designer, the developer, the project manager, the QA staff, the 3rd party vendor, etc.? No one person can be blamed for less-than-optimally secure software. However, most "hands on" crimes are more clear cut. How about wealthy CEOs who steal and rob money from employees and investors? Now there is a better analogy, those a-holes have ruined more than a few lives. (oh, but it is the auditors fault, or the CFO) But if found guilty, they won't be given life in prison, I can guarantee you. And wherever they serve, it probably won't be much of a prison. So I agree with you there. But compare robbery to robbery, it is a little easier to see the correlation.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
this is just like the 10-round magazine law. It doesn't do anything usefull, it just gets people used to the concept that this sort of thing should be regulated by law. Wait about 5 years, and then this bill's successors will be there to regulate every packet.
Sitting Walrus Blog
"... or had the effect..."
I am always concerned about a law that could get someone put on trial for an accident. If I write a piece of code that accidently causes all traffic lights to go green, should I be put in jail?
what if it is misused?
Should there be civil action? yes, but thats different.
OTOH if Win XP causes critical systems to crash, will MS be put on trial?
My concern is not how members of government would treate this bill, its how corporation could use this bill in a very twisted way.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
the point, I think, is that for any of this to apply you first have to be accessing some system without authorization.
So you broke into some system and didn't MEAN to turn out the power to the life support units in the hospital.. it was because of shoddy configuration. What is there to understand? You weren't supposed to be there.
If you are doing something you are not supposed to be doing, and that has consequences you didn't plan on/intend for, then who's fault is it? Yours.
Life sentences for lesser crimes already exist... For example, in many states you can server a life sentence (without parole) for growing of marijuanna. Hundreds of men are serving life sentences in prision for that right now. That seems to harm far fewer people than hacking.
Someone raised this point in another post earlier. The reason a new law seems to be needed is jurisdiction. It's very hard to work out which jurisdiction a hacking crime happens in. At least that's what I've seen in the cases I've read about. If a hacker causes death or serious injury, then the crime falls under state murder/manslaughter/negligence laws. Only problem is which state? This bill will give prosecutors the legal ablity to stick such offenders with a sentence that matches the crime. Or at least that's the theory put forward for public consumption. With the crap that the rest of this bill puts forward, I'm not sure I even buy the one sensible point in the whole thing.
The taliban is not a nice group of people - they have no respect for human rights, treat women as chattel, and like to persecute anyone who isn't a Muslim. If Bush has tried to provide evidence, the Taliban would have just played games about how they "weren't convinced". Bull. The United States does not answer to the whims of criminal regimes - they answer to *us*. The taliban was given a chance to comply with the demands of the United States, and they declined to comply. Getting bombed into tiny little bits is no worse than what they deserve.
I'm the stranger...posting to
People become terrorists because they are terrified. A Muslim whose education at a madrasas has consisted totally of reading the Koran for its power, is terrified by the powers we in the West gain from our books and films and (relatively) free communnications, so, terrified, they seek to return the terror to what they see as its source.
When I was training typical office workers in using computers back in the 80s, the most difficult hurdle was that most of them were terrified that the computer was sentient enough to become offended if they did something 'stupid' and intentionally punish them for their mistakes. Just as Muslims see a god in their book, even 'modern' Americans tend to see gods in their boxes - and both are terrified that those gods will punish them if they stray, even in ignorance, from their presumed commandments.
And now the Congress is terrified of computer networks, and seeks to terrorize those who appear to be favored by special powers by the new network gods, who must be made fearful of Congress's powers lest they reach out through the networks to strike them dead.
Lesson: Anyone whose power source is different from your own is guilty of witchcraft (whether that source is more or less advanced than yours makes little difference - thus 'modern' medicine derides 'witch doctors'). Since that witchcraft terrorizes you, you must hold the witches in check by terrorizing them in return. This is all simple anthropology.
Sometimes the witches (fundamentalist Muslims) are trying to kill you; sometimes they (sysadmins) aren't. The key to maximizing peace is overpowering the first group either with new culture or, if that fails, with containment or death; and overpowering your own paranoia regarding the second group, by whatever means are available. The tricky part comes if our own Congress continues towards behavior equivalent to that of fundamentalist Muslims. Our first course should be to ease their paranoia.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Um, hello? Flamebait? Oh yeah, the American prison system is just chalk full of thirteen year old hackers. Not just a dumbass, but and uninformed dumbass at that.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Spoken words can be as dangerous as a bullet or bomb depending on the sitaution, but censorship is only morally justifiable dpending on the circumstance. One of our basic values is that punishment should match the crime... and I have yet to see hacking cost one human life, and if it did shouldn't the assailant be charged with murder or manslaughter instead? Wouldn't there be public outcry if we sent 19 year old burglars to jail for life? This is insanity.
Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
Your beloved president made an outcry about the state of human rights and oppression of the people in Iran last week and demanded more freedom for them. Meanwhile back at the ranch, corporate executives can now go to jail for a whole, shocking 10 years after having robbed and cheated tens of thousands of people out of their jobs and the life savings, and some lonely, socially ostracised teenager can go to jail for life for mucking with Bill's personal pr0n server.
If things carry on like this, what is the rest of the world going to do with all those political refugees from the USA?
Bush purposes that CEO's that steal hundreds of millions of dollars, who crushes the lives of thousands of people, and topple corporations large enough to effect the entire US economy should not be allowed to head up a company again but a teenager who defaces a web site should spend the rest of his life behind bars.
What's wrong with this picture?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Makes me embarrassed to live in Texas.
Seriously, what are these morons thinking? And what kind of morons do they think we are?
So, how many people could you kill with a mouse if you flew it into a high rise building?
How many people would be killed when a mouse is detonated in front of a building in OKC?
Yes, it's a metaphor, but it's a remarkably studid one. Yes, let's give somebody life in prision because he hacked www.hot-wet-sluts.com. Uh-huh. Even hacking www.yahoo.com, www.cnn.com or even www.whitehouse.gov, how does that even begin to compare to killing people?
Maybe somebody needs to introduce these guys to the business end of a keyboard ...
The Hackers Manifesto Translation Guide
Copyright 2002 by Mulletproof. All rights reserved, Callahan!
"Hi. I'm Tommy. I'm a smart boy. You see, I have this skill called "lock picking". Maybe you've heard of it. One of my smart friends got caught yesterday trying to use his skills to get into a bank. Silly guy. It's all over the paper-- "Teenage boy tries to break into bank!" So cool.
"The grown-ups just don't understand. They don't understand what makes me tick. School is boring but luckily I have my lock picking set and friends with lock picking sets of their own. Instead of paying for TVs and electronics we just take em. Why bother, right? After all, they just mark it up anyway. The grown-ups just don't understand. Heck, they don't need to make that money anyway. We explore (illegly, homes, offices, stores, etc) and they call me a criminal. We seek after knowledge (rummaging through other people's belongings without permission) and they call me a criminal. I don't understand. I don't see what the big fuss is about. After all, "they" build atomic bombs, wage wars, murder, and cheat, so can't I break into your house at night? We're all even, right? I just want to look. I'm just a poor, curious, misunderstood boy. You can trust me.
~
MY crime is judging people by what thay say and think, and judging from what good ol Loyd says and thinks, the Hackers Manifesto is nothing but a shit-poor excuse to rationalize his actions because of the "evils of the world". "Since I have the skill and tools, I have a right to break into your house/business and do whatever the fuck I want." Even if it is simply "curiosity". "I'm curious about what is inside your home. I think I'll break in while you're out tonight. Who knows... If I don't like what I find (which is really none of my business in the first place), I'll destroy your house."
The Hacker's Manifesto: Self righteousness masquerading as intelligence. Is this harsh? Yeah. Are all hackers this self-dillusional? No. Thankfully, not all of them buy into this brain-washed BS. Sure the the public education system caters to the mjority of people with average intelligence. Sure you may have had a poor childhood for any number of reasons, including said system. But don't kid yourself in hiding behind curiosity so you can violate other peoples rights because you're more special than they are.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I think the analogy was quite appropriate. I have a right to ensure that anyone in my community owning a dangerous item knows how to -- and intends to -- use it safely. If you can't drive responsibly, you don't deserve to drive. If you can't use a gun responsibly, you don't deserve to have one. In other words, call it priviledge or right, it's the same: you only get to have it if you are responsible and safe with it.
If you decide to consciously kill people, you can do so with either the gun or car. That's covered by basic manslaughter laws. But if you aren't trained to use a gun or car safely, you should not be allowed to own one. I don't feel you have more of a right to own either one more than the other if you can't be trusted to be responsible and safe.
I've seen many drivers that I feel should have their licenses revoked for driving so poorly. I don't care if that's your livelihood if you are more likely to kill someone by driving -- take the bus or make other arrangements.
Similarly, I've read some stories (no first-hand knowledge thankfully) of people who stored their firearm irresponsibly or were careless and killed someone. They probably never considered the safety issue beyond the simplistic test you take for a license (I passed it after twenty minutes of skimming through the booklet, though I had been firing handguns for many years).
I've heard that driving tests in Germany are far more difficult than in America, and that's sad given how many fatal accidents there are each year in the U.S. I also feel the gun license should have a stricter test, but then again there are far fewer accidental gun deaths than car fatalities, so I'd make the driving test harder first. I was more surprised that I wasn't required to actually operate a gun to get a license to own one. Of course, you don't have to drive on the freeway during the test (never over 35 mph really) yet you're still licensed for freeway driving.
This seems backwards until you look at congress's history. 400,000 people die from smoking-related illnesses each year, yet tobacco is legal. Marijuana is illegal, yet to date there have been zero (0) cases of marijuana-related illness deaths. Go figure.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
That would only work if the perpetrator left the gun at the scene. AFAIK gun registration is linked to a registration number etched into the gun (slide or barrel, I do not know). Now, if you have the gun you can test to see if it fired a bullet you found at the crime scene (unless this is total movie fantasy), but I doubt you'd be able to create a database of barrel markings that would be searchable like fingerprints. And if you could, people would just buy new barrels on the black market.
That being said, I'm still torn on gun registration. You already need to have a license to own a handgun (not shotgun and some rifles, correct?), so basically there's a list of people likely to own a gun. The only thing I really care about is that anyone owning or using a gun has been cleared on safety issues and that they are not "likely" to use it for crime. "Likely" currently is determined by whether or not they have a felony record and are sane, IIRC.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Actually, this law is a good thing. We just need to lobby our various congresscritters to amend the bill to read "spammers" instead of "hackers" before it gets passed into law, and we'll be all set 8)
It really comes down to this: if you can't trust the government to act responsibly, and have no way to enforce responsibility, then perhaps the form of government needs to be changed. For example, one problem with democracy is "tyranny of the majority": if the majority decides some action is a crime, it affects the minority that doesn't believe it's a crime. See drug prohibition for an example.
If you truly believe that democracy is the best form of government, then you have little right to complain when guns are outlawed by the majority. Then again, it would require a constitutional ammendement in the U.S. which requires far more than a simple majority vote to pass. Then again, gun ownership is viewed as the final form of enforcing responsible government when all other methods fail.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
How does one kill someone across state lines?
1)Stand near the state line and fire a gun at someone on the other side.
2) Get a job at the Tylenol factory and add a little cyanide to the pills. Ship them out to stores all across the nation.
3) Hack into the records in a hospital in another state. Find someone with severe penicillin allergy. Erase that info, and put in a prescription for penicillin.
The question is, if existing laws cover the first two murders, and I'm sure they do, why is a special law required for the last third one?
Of course, there are also interstate (and international) murders for which you'll never see the man responsible going to prison:
4) You are a CEO of a corporation headquartered in one of these urbanized states with all sorts of regulations. So you have the factory (but not the HQ) moved to the most backwards and rural state you can find. And you order the manager to cut corners on safety...
That means
- When the light is green or yellow for north/south traffic, it must be red for east/west, and vice versa.
- When there is a green or yellow left-turn arrow for traffic going one way, there must be a red light for non-turning traffic going the opposite way and all traffic at right angles.
The system must be designed so that failure to resolve conflicting green/yellow privileges fails to an all-red or all-off (to be interpreted as a 4-way stop sign) condition rather than all-green. It should be flat impossible to send any command to a traffic light to give a green light to cause collisions.[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Not only is it uppauling, it is also appalling. I'm not sure you should have been flagged "offtopic," since the question of responsibility is there in the "hacking" issue. We have in our torts system the concept of contributory negligence. The person who robs your house is always criminally guilty, but his liability in a civil action might be lessened if you left your door wide open and left the country for six months.
The hacker is (and should be) criminally liable for any criminal acts, but what about the contributory negligence of the software and hardware makers? Of course, this is what all the liability disclaimers are for. (By using this software, you agree to the following...).
As a developer of software myself, I much prefer the caveat emptor system we currently use. I couldn't afford to write software if I might be liable for its flaws or misuse. Software is the only product I can think of with a specific disclaimer of merchantability or fitness. And yet we can get patents on it? Weird world...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
this must be a first, a life sentence charge without even physically harming anyone, something doesn't add up.
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
Legalese is still english, and easier to understand than, for example, C/C++. However for the legal impaired, here is your translation to english.
TITLE I--COMPUTER CRIME
SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO CERTAIN COMPUTER CRIMES.
DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION- Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend its guidelines and its policy statements applicable to persons convicted of an offense under section 1030 of title 18, United States Code. REQUIREMENTS- In carrying out this section, the Sentencing Commission shall-- (1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy statements reflect the serious nature of the offenses described in subsection , the growing incidence of such offenses, and the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate punishment to prevent such offenses; consider the following factors and the extent to which the guidelines may or may not account for them--the potential and actual loss resulting from the offense; the level of sophistication and planning involved in the offense; whether the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial benefit; whether the defendant acted with malicious intent to cause harm in committing the offense; the extent to which the offense violated the privacy rights of individuals harmed; whether the offense involved a computer used by the government in furtherance of national defense, national security, or the administration of justice; whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of significantly interfering with or disrupting a critical infrastructure; and whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of creating a threat to public health or safety, or injury to any person; assure reasonable consistency with other relevant directives and with other sentencing guidelines; account for any additional aggravating or mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally applicable sentencing ranges; make any necessary conforming changes to the sentencing guidelines; and assure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes of sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code.
Director of prisons: Its an election year and I need to look tough on terrorism to my constituants, so go look hard at the current sentancing guidelines so I can say I did something. If it looks like a total scumbag could, screw with the public infacstructure, hold it for ransom, or plan a fairly sophisticated attack on us without getting much more than a slap on the wrist, I want him hung by his nuts, so change it!
SEC. 101A. STUDY AND REPORT ON COMPUTER CRIMES. Not later than May 1, 2003, the United States Sentencing Commission shall submit a brief report to Congress that explains any actions taken by the Sentencing Commission in response to this Act and includes any recommendations the Commission may have regarding statutory penalties for offenses under section 1030 of title 18, United States Code.
You have to tell us what you changed so we can show the voters how tough we were.
SEC. 102. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE EXCEPTION.
These are all the laws that need changing to allow you to do what we asked.
IN GENERAL- Section 2702(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--by striking `or' at the end of paragraph(5); by striking subparagraph (C) of paragraph; in paragraph (6), by inserting `or' at the end of subparagraph (A); and by inserting after paragraph (6) the following: to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of communications relating to the emergency.'.
REPORTING OF DISCLOSURES- A government entity that receives a disclosure under this section shall file, no later than 90 days after such disclosure, a report to the Attorney General stating the subparagraph under which the disclosure was made, the date of the disclosure, the entity to which the disclosure was made, the number of customers or subscribers to whom the information disclosed pertained, and the number of communications, if any, that were disclosed. The Attorney General shall publish all such reports into a single report to be submitted to Congress one year after enactment of the bill.
SEC. 103. GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION.
Section 2520(d)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `or 2511(2)(i)' after `2511(3)'.
SEC. 104. INTERNET ADVERTISING OF ILLEGAL DEVICES.
Section 2512(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--by inserting `or disseminates by electronic means' after `or other publication'; and by inserting `knowing the content of the advertisement and' before `knowing or having reason to know'.
No more X-11 Even senator's hate those.
SEC. 105. STRENGTHENING PENALTIES.
Section 1030(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--by striking `and' at the end of paragraph (3); in each of subparagraphs (A) and (C) of paragraph (4), by inserting `except as provided in paragraph (5),' before `a fine under this title'; by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4)(C) and inserting `; and'; and by adding at the end the following:`(5)(A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.'.
Here is the life sentance part. This doesn't seem unfair. If you try to hack my nuclear power plant, I hope they fry you too.
SEC. 106. PROVIDER ASSISTANCE.
Section 2703- Section 2703(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `, statutory authorization' after `subpoena'.
Section 2511- Section 2511(2)(a)(ii) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `, statutory authorization,' after `court order' the last place it appears.
SEC. 107. EMERGENCIES.
Section 3125(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--by striking `or' at the end of subparagraph (A); by striking the comma at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting a semicolon; and by adding at the end the following: an immediate threat to a national security interest; or'an ongoing attack on a protected computer (as defined in section 1030) that constitutes a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment greater than one year;'.
SEC. 108. PROTECTING PRIVACY.
Section 2511- Section 2511(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--by striking paragraph (b); and by redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).
Makes you wonder what was in paragraph b doesn't it. Probably, Senator Hollings is a do-do head or soemthing.
Section 2701- Section 2701(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--in paragraph (1), by inserting `, or in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State' after `commercial gain';in paragraph (1)(A), by striking `one year' and inserting `5 years'; in paragraph (1)(B), by striking `two years' and inserting `10 years'; and so that paragraph (2) reads as follows: in any other case--a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year or both, in the case of a first offense under this paragraph; and a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under this subparagraph that occurs after a conviction of another offense under this section.'.
If you're a crazy who doesn't care about commercial gain, were still gonna lock you up!
PRESENCE OF OFFICER AT SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF WARRANTS FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND CUSTOMER RECORDS- Section 3105 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `The presence of an officer is not required for service or execution of a search warrant directed to a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service for records or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service.'.
Holy legalese batman, this one's kinda scary, it gives them the privledge to execute a warrent at your ISP without an officer's precense. I cant tell if it means the G-man can hack your account, or if they don't have to serve you, to check your ISP records, but I'm guessing the latter.
TITLE II--OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE; DIRECTOR.
ESTABLISHMENT-
IN GENERAL- There is hereby established within the Department of Justice an Office of Science and Technology (hereinafter in this title referred to as the `Office').
Another easy thing to point to to show how technical and hard on terroism the rep is. Its pretty sad that the FBI currently can't search their database with even the power of Windows find. We're pretty luck that by and large criminals are idiots.
AUTHORITY- The Office shall be under the general authority of the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, and shall be independent of the National Institute of Justice.
You have to show the new director where his budget comes from so he knows whieh butt to kiss.
DIRECTOR- The Office shall be headed by a Director, who shall be an individual appointed based on approval by the Office of Personnel Management of the executive qualifications of the individual.
This just establishes a director and who gets to name him.
SEC. 202. MISSION OF OFFICE; DUTIES.
MISSION- The mission of the Office shall be--
To get me reelected, just checking to see if your still reading.
to serve as the national focal point for work on law enforcement technology; and to carry out programs that, through the provision of equipment, training, and technical assistance, improve the safety and effectiveness of law enforcement technology and improve access to such technology by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
Everything needs a misson statment these days. Director, get those FBI searches to support multiple terms and boolean logic.
DUTIES- In carrying out its mission, the Office shall have the following duties: To provide recommendations and advice to the Attorney General. To establish and maintain advisory groups (which shall be exempt from the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)) to assess the law enforcement technology needs of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
You have to work with both the AG, and the state law enforcment departments.
To establish and maintain performance standards in accordance with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113) for, and test and evaluate law enforcement technologies that may be used by, Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
We love charts that show technology increasing, and crime decreasing.
To establish and maintain a program to certify, validate, and mark or otherwise recognize law enforcement technology products that conform to standards established and maintained by the Office in accordance with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113). The program may, at the discretion of the Office, allow for supplier's declaration of conformity with such standards.
There is a reccession to end, make sure that our campaing donor's products get a nice big seal to show to the folks who run the state law enforcment agencies.
To work with other entities within the Department of Justice, other Federal agencies, and the executive office of the President to establish a coordinated Federal approach on issues related to law enforcement technology. To carry out research, development, testing, and evaluation in fields that would improve the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of law enforcement technologies used by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, including, but not limited to--
Good, more spending, I hope some of it makes it to my district this time.
weapons capable of preventing use by unauthorized persons, including personalized guns; protective apparel; bullet-resistant and explosion-resistant glass; monitoring systems and alarm systems capable of providing precise location information; wire and wireless interoperable communication technologies;
3G just needs a kick in the pants to take off.
tools and techniques that facilitate investigative and forensic work, including computer forensics; equipment for particular use in counterterrorism, including devices and technologies to disable terrorist devices; guides to assist State and local law enforcement agencies; DNA identification technologies; and tools and techniques that facilitate investigations of computer crime.
Hey, the donations from these companes finally paid off.
(7) To administer a program of research, development, testing, and demonstration to improve the interoperability of voice and data public safety communications.
Before we go on a buying spree, please test this stuff, we don't want to look bad when this gets someone killed.
(8) To serve on the Technical Support Working Group of the Department of Defense, and on other relevant interagency panels, as requested. To develop, and disseminate to State and local law enforcement agencies, technical assistance and training materials for law enforcement personnel, including prosecutors.
No slouching on the job, teach those state justice people how to nail cyber criminals, if you have some free time.
To operate the regional National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers and, to the extent necessary, establish additional centers through a competitive process.
The states are getting pretty tired of unfunded mandates so you will have your own department.
To administer a program of acquisition, research, development, and dissemination of advanced investigative analysis and forensic tools to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in combating cybercrime. To support research fellowships in support of its mission.
We can't fall behind Japan in a technology race, so support some scientists working on NSF grants that apply to what we want you to do.
To serve as a clearinghouse for information on law enforcement technologies. To represent the United States and State and local law enforcement agencies, as requested, in international activities concerning law enforcement technology.
Here's your R&R, just don't go to the Tahitian conference on cyber security during an election year, please.
To enter into contracts and cooperative agreements and provide grants, which may require in-kind or cash matches from the recipient, as necessary to carry out its mission.
Contiued recession-busting and pump priming. Line up to the trough boys, the pork's a comming
To carry out other duties assigned by the Attorney General to accomplish the mission of the Office.
If we get caught with our pants down agian, fix that too!
COMPETITION REQUIRED- Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, all research and development carried out by or through the Office shall be carried out on a competitive basis.
Aren't you happy your security is ensured by the lowest bidder? It looks really bad when another doner gets a contract and we don't have a good reason, like he was the lowest bidder. [at an acution that was only publicized at his place of business]
INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES- Federal agencies shall, upon request from the Office and in accordance with Federal law, provide the Office with any data, reports, or other information requested, unless compliance with such request is otherwise prohibited by law.
FBI and CIA you have to play nice with these guys, their getting us reelected, and were mad that you didn't predict the future last time.
PUBLICATIONS- Decisions concerning publications issued by the Office shall rest solely with the Director of the Office. TRANSFER OF FUNDS- The Office may transfer funds to other Federal agencies or provide funding to non-Federal entities through grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts to carry out its duties under this section.
Now you can pay for all the stuff you're buying.
ANNUAL REPORT- The Director of the Office shall include with the budget justification materials submitted toCongress in support of the Department of Justice budget for each fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code) a report on the activities of the Office. Each such report shall include the following:
Again we have to have charts to take to the voters, and we look really dumb on CSAN just standing there. If you hook me up with a laser pointer, I'll make sure that your budget gets increased next year.
(1) For the period of 5 fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted--the Director's assessment of the needs of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies for assistance with respect to law enforcement technology and other matters consistent with the mission of the Office; and
this better involve lots of spending in my district.
a strategic plan for meeting such needs of such law enforcement agencies.
Pols love strategy meetings almost as much as their cousins the PHBs.
For the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which such budget is submitted, a description of the activities carried out by the Office and an evaluation of the extent to which those activities successfully meet the needs assessed under paragraph (1)(A) in previous reports.
You better get some good stuff done, remeber we have to look good to the voters.
SEC. 203. DEFINITION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY.
This is where all the terms we used are defined, so you don't make any mistakes, an opponent can beat us over the head with next election.
For the purposes of this title, the term `law enforcement technology' includes investigative and forensic technologies, corrections technologies, and technologies that support the judicial process.
SEC. 204. ABOLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE; TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.
TRANSFERS FROM OFFICE WITHIN NIJ- The Office of Science and Technology of the National Institute of Justice is hereby abolished, and all functions and activities performed immediately before the date of the enactment of this Act by the Office of Science and Technology of the National Institute of Justice are hereby transferred to the Office.
You have failed me for the last time, director.
AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS- The Attorney General may transfer to the Office any other program or activity of the Department of Justice that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, determines to be consistent with the mission of the Office.
Ashcroft is really starting to annoy us.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS-
This is the really important part.
IN GENERAL- Any balance of appropriations that the Attorney General determines is available and needed to finance or discharge a function, power, or duty of the Office or a program or activity that is transferred to the Office shall be transferred to the Office and used for any purpose for which those appropriations were originally available. Balances of appropriations so transferred shall--be credited to any applicable appropriation account of the Office; or be credited to a new account that may be established on the books of the Department of the Treasury;and shall be merged with the funds already credited to that account and accounted for as one fund.
Funding comes from the Office of the AG, and you can store funds with the Treasury.
LIMITATIONS- Balances of appropriations credited to an account under paragraph (1)(A) are subject only to such limitations as are specifically applicable to that account. Balances of appropriations credited to an account under paragraph (1)(B) are subject only to such limitations as are applicable to the appropriations from which they are transferred.
You can use the funds for any purpose that is likely to get us reellected.
TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL AND ASSETS- With respect to any function, power, or duty, or any program or activity, that is transferred to the Office, those employees and assets of the element of the Department of Justice from which the transfer is made that the Attorney General determines are needed to perform that function, power, or duty, or for that program or activity, as the case may be, shall be transferred to the Office.
this just allows people to be transfered to the new office from other departments. Not allowing hires or transfers is an easy way to sound like you are for something, but can remain agianst it.
REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the implementation of this title. The report shall--identify each transfer carried out pursuant to subsection (b)Sorry the lameness filter doesn't like the subsection titles. b is the subsection that describes accounts left with the treasury.; provide an accounting of the amounts and sources of funding available to the Office to carry out its mission under existing authorizations and appropriations, and set forth the future funding needs of the Office; include such other information and recommendations as the Attorney General considers appropriate.
Good more reports, this is better than Christmas, On national news, I get to look good either praising you for preventing crime, or rake you over the coals, for letting something bad happen. I hope they get my good side, while I get a great sound byte.
SEC. 205. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CORRECTIONS TECHNOLOGY CENTERS.
IN GENERAL- The Director of the Office shall operate and support National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers (hereinafter in this section referred to as `Centers') and, to the extent necessary, establish new centers through a merit-based, competitive process.
PURPOSE OF CENTERS- The purpose of the Centers shall be to--support research and development of law enforcement technology; support the transfer and implementation of technology; assist in the development and dissemination of guidelines and technological standards; and provide technology assistance, information, and support for law enforcement, corrections, and criminal justice purposes.
You better put a center in my disctrict, just think of all the high tech jobs I'll have brought in, its like an elected offical's wet dream.
ANNUAL MEETING- Each year, the Director shall convene a meeting of the Centers in order to foster collaboration and communication between Center participants.
REPORT- Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to the Congress a report assessing the effectiveness of the existing system of Centers and identify the number of Centers necessary to meet the technology needs of Federal, State, and local law enforcement in the United States.
If we hear about a complete lack of productivity at those centers, from the media, were gonna can you!
SEC. 206. COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENTITIES WITHIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
Section 102 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3712) is amended in subsection (a)(5) by inserting `coordinate and' before `provide'. Passed the House of Representatives July 15, 2002.
Attest:
Clerk.
Lets you know that it passed the house, and the date. Also that the clerk attests to this fact. Happily, for the bill's opponents, the senate is much more thoughtful about sweeping legislation, unless there's pork involved for their district. The only major change to actual policy is the provision regarding the warrant sercicing at your ISP or colo. The rest is just elected officials shuffling jobs trying to look good in an election year.
END
That's it, wow that took a long time! Now get back to work! Especially if you work for the government.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
...except for the fuckin politicians.
Honestly, where do they dig these people up to be politicians? There are maybe one or two senators who might actually have a clue, and that goes double for house reps.
I'd run, but I wouldn't be good at it. That and I'm 21....
The terrorists won, you know. Already. Everyone here changed after 9/11. Am I the only one that no longer cares that some ignorant towelhead learned to fly a plane? Tragedy, yes, no question. But if we let it corrupt and ruin us from the inside, the terrorists won. As if blowing up two buildings alone was what "stopped America". No, not only did the economic havoc mess us up but now everyone is still "emotionally scarred" from the experience, and they're all trying to compensate by being blind, flag waving sheep. They will be further abused by those who see this opportunity, and that number of "those" isn't small....
Oh, but dont' you dare speak out about it, or you're a terrorist. And Baby Jesus, who sits on our legislative branch now, will together with Uncle Sam stick a pitchfork in your heathen ass and ship you to the South Pole.
Guess what kids? If you crack Palladium, or use a felt marker to "fix" a copy protected CD... YOU'RE A HACKER. A sad day when I can stab someone with a Sharpie and get less time than if I write with it.
Land of the free, home of the sellout. I'm going to Canada.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
It is interesting that Congress has approved a penalty usually reserved for murder for a crime that essentially amounts to expensive vandalism. If you deface a wall, you get a few hours of community service. If you deface a website, you get life. I would say that it is difficult to consider a society that can put people in prison for life for a crime that is more or less a misdemeanor a free society.
What about those Enron and Worldcom executives? When do they get life in prison or an even stiffer sentence? The crime they committed was premeditated stealing. That at least would be considered a felony in most cultures.
Moral:
If you are greedy and like to steal, Uncle Sam wants you to run a major corporation and write a book. If you are a teenager and have nothing better to do than deface a little property, better do it with spray paint, because if you use your computer, you can grow old in prison.
Nice message we are sending to young people these days. I suppose Gecko was right: "Greed... is good!"
All data is speech. All speech is Free.